I'm not particularly convinced by the justifications offered for the BBC's decision, because they're not really supported by precedent. UKIP was once represented in a Holyrood debate despite never having had an MSP - the argument being that having a representative in another parliament qualified them. Broadcasters have also relied on opinion poll evidence, not just past election results, when justifying the inclusion of certain parties - but they're in no position to say that Alba aren't doing well enough in the polls, because there haven't been any polls since the party was created.
I can't help feeling that if we were talking about a Nigel Farage vehicle for a Westminster election, and if he'd managed to get MPs and councillors to defect, that would have been enough to get him into the debate. It really is no more complicated than the broadcasters making up the rules to please themselves.
Is there any upside? Well, in an ideal world we'll now have Nicola Sturgeon successfully taking the fight to the unionists in the debate without any distractions - which is in all our interests, because we need the SNP to be dominant in the constituency ballot. However, if there are large segments of the debate devoted to Salmond-bashing, without the man himself being there to answer back, the BBC's decision will look ever more outrageous.
* * *
You can catch up with Episode 5 of the Scot Goes Popcast, with special guest Len Pennie (Miss PunnyPennie) HERE.
Alba is going to come up as a major talking point but not have the right of reply. RISE/UKIP was never a major talking point.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfair to me and very obvious what is going on.
I'm concerned that he really needed to be on this debate/following debates for Alba to make a real impact. Sturgeon was under the cosh after Salmond's evidence (don't want to get into that) because he is a master of putting forward an argument. He needs an opportunity to state his case to a watching nation. A space leaves him rubbished by all.
Nicola and Alex would have wiped the floor with the unionists.
ReplyDeleteIf you invite Salmond, then you invite Galloway and then you have to invite all list only parties. Only parties with candidates in constituencies should be invited. Of course, you could argue Douglas Ross shouldn't attend either as he's not running in a constituency.
ReplyDeletesensible editorial limits should be applied but I would have no qualms with Galloway being invited. He's a choice. As is whatever the UKIP party is called now.
DeleteDidn't like it when it was done to the SNP in UK elections and don't like it now either.
Alba has already 2 MPs in their fold. A lot more than Galloway's KitKat club will ever dream of managing or even UKIP at Westminster elections. Still we had to listen to nasty Farage all of the time. More hypocrisy from the Beeb, I'm afraid. But they do seem to have that baked into their system.
DeleteI think it’s reasonable to include the parties which have representation at Holyrood, although even that opens a can of worms because you’d have to have Reform UK there.
ReplyDeleteEither the main ones
SNP, Con, Lab
Or SNP, Con, Lab, Green, Lib Dem, Reform UK, Alba
Just have parties that won seats last time. Reform uk didn't win any.
DeleteI think that’s fair - go by 2016’s parties. This year there could be those 7 parties represented, though SNP will still win around half the seats.
DeleteIt is fair. I'd also add any party polling at some agreed level, say 6% on the list as this is when they start to be in contention for seats.
DeleteIf Alba come up more than once as a topic in any debates Nicola should just say "if you felt the party merited such attention you should have invited them to the debate, I am here to talk about my party not someone else's".
ReplyDeleteIf you invite alba you have to invite all the other little parties to be fair.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a separate debate show for the 'others' which don't have any seats in holyrood?
The other "little parties" all have MPs and councillors, do they?
DeleteThought not.
MPs are not relevant as this is a Scottish election. And alba has never had any elected anyway.
DeleteLoads of little parties / 'independents' have councillors.
I don't see what's wrong with my idea. It would give isp, reform uk etc an equal voice and in effect would represent how polling is done, with others separated.
DeleteMaybe the 'winner' of the little guys debate could be included in a final shoe with those who won seats in 2016.
Alba has never had any councillors elected either.
DeleteIt's not an "idea" - it's something that's been done by STV before. As for what's wrong with punting it, basically I'd say because it's a way of supporting the exclusion of Alba in a deniable way.
DeleteAs already explained in the blogpost, the "MPs are not relevant" thing is simply not consistent with past precedent.
I'm just saying what I personally think is fair. You either include everyone who wants on / is standing, or draw a line somewhere. Winning seats at the last national parliamentary election under PR (or at least via a by-election) for that seems fair. Westminster is bad because it unfairly excludes small parties and so isn't representative. Alba have not won a seat for there and my guess is they don't want to try in by-elections because they think they'll lose.
DeleteThe precedents are mostly meaningless. There are variable thresholds and they always favour the incumbents.
ReplyDeleteParties which got elected at the previous relevant election are the most entitled(Holyrood'16).
Parties which won by-elections for the above.
Next up are the parties which got elected in a different, but more recent election(Councils'17, EU'19, Westminster'19.).
Parties which won by-elections for the above.
Parties which poll more than, say, 5%.
Parties which acquired seats by defections.
The lower down the list, the easier it is to justify exclusion(& this can be in the gift of the established parties by collectively refusing to participate, in a sort of prisoner's dilemma). A consequence of Alba's late launch is the inability to generate a poll quickly enough to argue for its inclusion, never mind winning any by-elections.
A hard rule which says that parties with sitting parliamentarians must be given TV debate presence could result in the admittedly hilarious but also incredibly destabilising event of dozens of MSPs forming their own parties. So we're stuck until these polls show up.
If the defections to Alba are being managed for maximum impact, we should be seeing one before each debate. Hopefully they'll get into the final one as a result of rocking the boat.
Genuine question why is Nicola asking people to elect her again as first minister? Has the law changed and the position of first minister become a directly electable position and I've missed it.
ReplyDeleteThe reasoning is probably that "re-elect me" is catchier than "vote for the party who are running on a platform of re-electing me", and that no one's going to be sad enough to care about the distinction.
DeleteI presume it's because she proposes to put herself forward for re-election as FM if enough folk vote SNP to make that possible.
DeleteAs things stand, she's no longer FM. She stepped down last week. Is just in a caretaker role atm.
It's not as if she's alone in this, e.g.:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ruth-davidson-i-want-be-scotlands-first-minister-1454902
In an interview with The Times, Ruth Davidson said she was “absolutely determined” that, by the time of the next Scottish Parliament elections, her party would be in a position to offer a “complete, total alternative to the SNP in government”.
Asked whether this meant she was aiming to replace Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister, Ms Davidson said: “Yes.”
Salmond even had 'Alex Salmond for FM' on the actual list ballot back in 2007.
Deletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7342692.stm
Maybe you've not been following things here for very long?
I know he did and if it was 2007 I would be asking the same question. I'm just curious why the SNP feels (as they did in 2007 as you say) the need to push their leader rather than the party/polices.
DeleteWhat ever the party /election I feel that parties should be honest with the electorate. The only people who can vote for her directly are those in the constancy she is standing in (and that is for them to elect her as a MSP not FM). Parties should not try and make out otherwise.
I don't know anyone that thinks like you. Everyone I've met knows they are not directly voting for her, certainly not on the constituency vote, but if they vote SNP they are indirectly voting for her. This couldn't be more obvious. SNP win big = Sturgeon as FM.
DeleteAlso, unlike Westminster, this is party list PR. On the list you are to a large extent voting party rather than person, although you can find out who's on the list. So it's much more a vote for the SNP and it's leadership, with the constituency for someone local. Exactly what AMS is intended as.
So I usually get local stuff from Christine Graham about her past achievements and priorities. I will see her name on the constituency ballot and don't feel Sturgeon's trying to tell me I'm voting for her rather than Christine Grahame.
I do know the SNP as a party are after my PR list vote, and they send me bump about party manifesto / achievements including saying they propose to try and get Sturgeon back as FM. On the list ballot it will just be a big SNP, maybe with a slogan of some form.
Given all the arguments over the 'list vote Alba' thing, I'd have though anyone with an ounce of sense would understand that the SNP want both votes as that's most likely to deliver Sturgeon at the helm again.
I think you'd have to want to feel deceived to feel deceived. We've been voting this was for 24 years.
I'll also add that given Sturgeon has been completely exonerated of any wrongdoing, and remains really popular, she's a decent selling point for the SNP. You want a decent, competent and honest leader going into an indyref and possible negotiations; and Hamilton's ringing endorsement is testament to this.
DeleteI suspect those that have lied to Scots about Sturgeon for the past year plus about her honesty, saying she had broken the ministerial code and should resign, are probably going to face a voter backlash. I'd suggest that will include Salmond too, although it's not possible to know what might have been here.
The Fabiani committee report ruled by a majority decision that she had misled parliament.
DeleteShe also signed off on a procedure that was manifestly flawed and unfair.
The opposition / unionist dominated committee did not say she 'knowingly' mislead parliament - as required for a lie - and deferred to Hamilton as to any breach of the code.
DeleteI quote:
716. For all these reasons, the Committee believes that James Hamilton’s report is the most appropriate place to address the question of whether or not the First Minister has breached the Scottish Ministerial Code.
This goes without saying as Hamilton is independent. The committee is politically biased. So she was gound honest; cleared on every possible breach. The former head of the Irish CPS - a man that knows a lair when he sees one - found her account truthful and Alex Salmond's not so.
And signing off a procedure that your HR people have botched is hardly a crime. You have to trust they've thought it through properly. Sturgeon said sorry a number of times here on live TV , and even Jackie Ballie said 'why are you apologising when it's not really your fault'.
Certainly, it's not an issue of honesty she was totally honest here and apologized.
I don't have Sturgeon or Salmond on a pedestal, but that's what has happened.
Salmond tried to tell me many time she'd broken the ministerial code but I could not see how. I read everything and concluded like Hamilton did.
The Fabiani committee report was entirely biased it voted along party lines, it could never have been otherwise, knowing Scottish politics.
DeleteMore grist to the mill I guess, negative attention only seems to strengthen the movement in some regards. When something has been brewing for a long time, (for me since Salmond was first in power and I disagreed with the changes that I found in the SNP on my return to Scotland) then there is a latent energy. Salmond is there by default but others like Collette Walker of the ISP and Chris McEleny, seem more in tune with the policy options that people want back on the table. If they can align with plan B and a Scottish currency, and oppose the gender recognition act as well as some other legislation, then it will have legs. one thing I think it should do and has to do to genuinely reflect the reality of Brexit and the withes of a large number of votes pro and against indie is support EFTA as a way to negotiate between extreme Brexit Britain and the EU. Scotland's not a delusional nation it can live with compromise like that. back to exclusion of the media, the big advantage of Salmond coming on board is people will seek him out, the fact of exclusion as I said before fit's into the old adage that, all publicity is good publicity.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish people are SOVEREIGN, not the political parties. After independence the people will have to be consulted by referendum.
DeleteErm, aye.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1375597865037410309
Ballot Box Scotland
@BallotBoxScot
26 Mar
Take 2: It may come as a surprise but both UK and other national governments have access to calculators. They will very cunningly determine whether any mythical "supermajority" of seats for Independence is actually backed by a similar number of voters by adding up the list votes.
Like it or not, you can tally up all the votes for pro-indy parties. Swapping to Alba from SNP doesn't increase support for indy.
Well, it doesn't decrease it either. If we're granting for the sake of the exercise that Alba accomplish their stated goal, surely 75 pro-indy seats is going to make a bigger splash than 65 on the same share of the vote.
DeleteNot if it's achieved on 49.9% of the vote.
DeleteI'd prefer Alba targeted soft unionists like the SNP do to try and further the cause.
No party voted into power in the UK has ever achieved near 50% of the vote, vote % dose not matter. If your are the winner you are the winner
DeleteNot if it's achieved on 49.9% of the vote.
DeleteYou think 75 seats achieved on 49.9% of the vote will make exactly the same impact as 65 seats achieved on 49.9% of the vote?
Of course. But 49.9% Yes in the iref doesn't deliver indy. We've had Yes majorities twice now; a simple majority of MSPs is all that's needed to pass the iref2 bill. We don't need a disproportionate number so we can brag about it. Doesn't deliver votes and may even scare soft Nos away. Would be looking like a 'one party state' in terms of Yes dominance. Unionists are already talking about Yes parties cheating the system etc.
DeleteWe need Yes voters not extra seats. The SNP and Greens both target soft Nos and that is how we win. Alba should do the same; it should be looking to get No voters to vote Alba. Social conservative modest right of centre for example. Instead, it seems to just want to grab a share of the Yes vote and then spend its time berating the Yes parties which are trying to win over No voters.
I cannot for the life of me vote for a party that openly says it doesn't want to govern. What's the point of it then? A free trough ticket?
I really want to see more Yes MSPs, but as a sign that there are more Yes voters. We are missing a modest right of centre Yes party and this is a missed opportunity.
A more 'socially conservative', 'left wing', 'very radical indy' party is a confusing mix with a pretty narrow appeal and one that won't include to No voters I imagine.
You think 75 seats achieved on 49.9% of the vote will make exactly the same impact as 65 seats achieved on 49.9% of the vote?
DeleteYes, ultimately. It would be exciting on the night but not change anything fundamentally, especially if those extra 10 MSPs are 'rebels' out to cause the governing party problems. It's not going to create more Yes votes and that's all that matters.
What impact has up to 56/59 MPs had? Pretty much naff all. Even with unionists struggling to get their prized london trough ticket they're still keen on the union. Although I'm happy to see them denied this by their own system.
We win indy my more Yes / Yes party voters. The SNP and Greens are actually trying to do this, then get berated for not being more ultra-radical, so scaring off the soft Nos.
Britnat Westminster will come up with every lie and excuse to claim people in Scotland don't want indyref2. If the number of pro-indy MSPs elected is too large to ignore britnats will carp about the SNP's share, the pro-indy vote percentage, or the turnout - anything to obfuscate. The SNP leadership knows this and must be prepared to counter britnat lies. By aligning itself closely and genuinely with other pro-indy MSPs in Holyrood they have a chance to successfully override britnat intransigence.
ReplyDeleteSadly, at the moment, the SNP leadership continues to play by britnat Westminster's rules, meekly going along with every goalpost change.
The SNP leadership must find the guts and gumption to rip up the britnat rule book. If AS and his party, and the Greens, can kick the SNP leadership into some radical shape, then the people of Scotland will be thankful.
Every one is trying to second guess the SNP before their manifesto.
ReplyDeleteAction for Independence and the Independence for Scotland Party, have already withdrawn all of their candidates in support of Salmond's goals.
ReplyDeleteI can guarantee if I went down my local high Street and asked voters about ALBA a clear majority would never have heard of it/him.
ReplyDeleteEverybody has heard of Nicola.
I can guarantee that if I walked down High Street in Turriff, and asked about Alba, every single person would reply along the lines of "Oh aye......Salmond's lot", and then go on to tell me whether they'd be voting for them.....
DeleteEverybody has heard of Nicola, but then everybody has heard of Alex. That argument about recognisability might have worked against Colette Walker, but it won't work against Salmond.
Sorry to tell you, but unless you are online on a blog like this or twitter, most people will have heard of Alex Salmond but relatively few will have heard of 'his lot'. And the vast majority who have will consider them tarred with his extraordinarily high disapproval ratings.
DeleteHow about just the parties registered in Scotland?
ReplyDelete